good idea or bad idea?
 

Texas school tells classes to fight back

Good idea or Bad? Most schools 'safety' plans or lockdowns run along the lines of the teacher turning out the lights, locking the door, and having the kids hide in the corner. That works great if the gunman never comes to your class, but what if it's YOUR kids class that the gunman enters? what would you want your child to do in that situation? I've tried to teach mine how to fight many times so that he could defend himself in situations like this.

I'm torn. On one hand, running toward the guy with the gun strikes me as a very poor strategy. On the other, everybody running toward the guy with the gun would tend to end his spree pretty fast.

Also, if I were a kid in that school district who was planning another Columbine, it'd chill my shit to know that every kid in the school was trained and encouraged to take me out.

having been on the receiving end of a teachers stapler once (don't ask, long story) I've no wish to do it again and it would certainly give me pause to imagine the team quarterback or pitcher whipping that thing at my head. :eek:

I'm fer it.

It sounds like a good plan, but how many people can do what they're taught in an emergency.

More importantly, how many of the students will be able to do this together? I don't want to be the one throwing the stapler only to find out everyone else decided to crawl beneath their desk.

But how many of them end up dead before that happens?

That being said, if I know I am about to die, i'd like to believe that I would go down fighting instead of being passive.

That's what rent-a-cops are for.

potentially, that could be a positive idea. If only for the fact that it would make the children feel empowered instead of like defenseless victims waiting to be shot....

but on the whole, children aren't known for maturity... I don't think that this is the way to address the issue of school shootings, but it's an idea.

sweetpea

I think its a good idea, unless the gunman had no intention of shooting anyone until he saw the classroom charging.

Much the same as hijacking airplanes, it only works when the people do not fight to prevent it. Personally I know I would charge at the guy instinctively. But that's just me, if me dying prevents many more people than so be it.

So you're in a classroom and you pull out a gun and yell everyone to get down.. then you're going to say you don't intend to shoot people?

This strikes me a bit like the thought process of "places are less likely to be robbed when they know every person in there is potentially packing as well."

And I don't find that a problem.

In reality, however, there will be times when a person had no real intention of killing anyone, but a stampede would very likely make them panic- and a person holding a gun and panicking because he's being charged is not a good combo.

So, this is the optimal fix for the "guy walks in with a gun and immediately starts shooting or making known intentions to shoot" scenario, but not necessarily for the guy who walks in and seems to just be taking hostages for another purpose.

It will be great until the first time a kid gets shot and the guy with the gun goes on TV saying he never intended to shoot anyone, but panicked and "accidentally" shot the kid. Then the person who taught the kids to charge him will be metaphorically burned at the stake.

A lot of times, the point of a hostage-taker is not to hurt those they've taken hostage, but will hurt them if necessary to get what they want. That's the very definition of hostage-taking. Also, they do not at all always end in the hostage-taker killing anyone. By and large, ignoring hollywood, hostage-takers are vying for attention and want something, but are actually total cowards unwilling to actually kill anyone.

If they all run toward the gunman, won't that make it easier for him to shoot & injure more kids, i.e. close range = direct hits ??? :confused:

Two wrongs don't make a right. You should not fight, because it just makes everything worse and makes for more chaos.

So if a guy rapes you, you won't fight back?

I think it would be good (in theory) until the kids start using it on one another...

We can play the "what if the gunman wants to..." game all f'ing day imagining different situations when it may or may not be a bad idea.

It all boils down to:

Let other people choose what happens to your life, by sitting quietly. Or,

Use your best judgement and fight.

Either way, when someoene's got a gun pointed at you, you have only two choices:

Don't fight and see if you get shot or not.

Fight and see if you get shot or not.

America's so pussified, most of us would rather sit quietly and get shot.

Personally, I'm choosing my moment and throwing a desk at the mother f'er.

A man running from the police enters a school campus perchance, with no intention of shooting a kid (which is not unheard of). He hides in a classroom and gets jumped by thirty students, a TA, and a teacher. See what I mean?

I just posted "attack" on the poll, and it was a complete 50/50. I had to really think about this one... I would like kids to be taught to defend themselves, but I think i'd be the first one to dive head first out the nearest window. Imagine if the policy was to teach kids to attack, then an incident occurs in the future where a gunman kills all the kids who try to?

fucked up

I posted attack, but really, I'm torn. It would very much depend on the moment and the apparent aptitude of the gunman. If you catch him off guard, you could very well save a bunch of lives. If not, you could be what starts him firing and he might not stop till the gun goes "click".

Good idea in theory, but hard to put into practice I would think. It's hard to get kids to line up properly in a classroom, how are they supposed to all attack someone with a gun? But then I guess they might be motivated by the knowledge of past attacks and what happens...

Hard to decide either way. Either way people will most likely be shot, so I guess it comes down to what do you want to be doing when you're shot?

-Tamerlain

everyone that has said 'it would be easier to shoot all the kids as they charged you', think a minute. 17 kids stand up and charge you all at once....will YOU be able to shoot them all? I was a marine for 6 years, a damn fine expert shot with both rifle and pistol, and there is absolutely no way I could plug more than 3 of them before I get swarmed. People have to STOP considering people with criminal intent as some sort of superhuman.

Also, the 'what if' situations of someone just wanting to take hostages...etc. That is how we end up with the high crime rates like DC, chicago, and new york. You should ALWAYS assume that anytime someone comes at you with a gun, knife, ball bat, golf club, katana, or any other weapon, that he means to do you serious or fatal bodily injury. NEVER assume that a bad guy will not hurt you as long as you comply. That is an invitation to certain death.

If he has a gun, I probably would be very hesitant to "fight" unless I found a direct weakness in his approach. Gun > hand-to-hand, always.

while severely handicapped if you are unarmed, submitting to being raped does nothing if afterwards he decides to kill you anyway simply to avoid a witness.

A guy walks into a school and pulls out a gun. Several students respond by attacking him, just as they were taught by their school to do in the event of this happening. The gunman kills three and critically injures five before being overwhelmed.

This is a perfect formula for a series of lawsuits, public outrage, and years of misery.

Children are not police officers, nor are they soldiers.

I don't know, i think that in some situations it might work and in some situations it probably wouldn't. I don't like the idea of my kid going out like some WWII russian infantryman, though.

as opposed to casually executing 15 because he was given zero resistance?

Unfortunately, there is no one single best answer to the question. In some situations, a class might pull together well enough to charge a panicky guy successfully, in others, fleeing would work better. It's one of those situations in which either method could be right or wrong.

Having seen what happened at Ecole Polytechnique in 1991, my first instinct ever since that time has been to charge the gunner.

How many gunmen have you charged?

Don't forget the MOST important issue in a situation like this is the well-being of the children ... even if that means they have to run and hide while a gunman escapes. It's stupid to use our kids as cannon-fodder until a gunman runs out of ammunition. I'd rather train and arm at least one teacher or security officer in the school


Which brings up another issue ... what's the function of "Gun-Free Zones?" It's not going to stop a deranged gunman from doing his business. It just assures him that nobody in the school is going to be armed.

The other option was to immediately run - not stand around.


-----------------
If you SERIOUSLY want our kids to bum-rush a gunman then a school should hold self-defense courses and courses on grappling a foe. So martial arts should be MANDATORY - otherwise we're asking children to remain unprepared as well as placing themselves intentionally in harm's way. We don't even ask our police officers to do that.

No, I wouldn't.

I voted run away. Many supporting "rush the gunman" are comparing that to doing nothing. That wasn't the second option.

This is complete nonsense. It is far, far from "certain death." Armed robberies don't always end in someone getting killed. I'd guess that most do not. Rapes don't always end in someone getting killed. Bad guys freqently do not want to kill, only to achieve some other goal and use violence or the threat thereof as a means to that end.

Gilda

Those 'gun-free' and 'drug-free' zones aren't referring to the schools, they refer to the point that if you are caught with either within that(school) zone, your sentence will increase.(Like anyone thinks, 'gee, I'm 1000ft from a school, I better move before I shoot this thing and sell this crack':rolleyes: )
All the school shootings had one thing in common: there was no fighting back.
I'd want my kids to do everything possible to get them out relatively unscathed-throw chairs, bite the gunman's fucking thumb off, if they could...
It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, but there are reports in other instances (rape, robbery,abduction, etc) where fighting back was the thing to do.

This thread makes me so sad.

That's not because I strongly prefer one position over the other. It's because we're being forced to choose between two such loathsome outcomes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're not speaking of a bank robbery where indeed the main object is to obtain money rather than hurt people. The OP is speaking of a school setting, where anyone walking in with a semi-automatic rifle likely has one thing in mind, namely killing people.

When there is another goal - be it money, sex, or other - "going along" may make sense. When the goal of the villain is simply to kill and hurt people, there is a time for fighting, and there is a time for running. Each situation is different.

Me? One. But it was part of what I did for a living.

To add to highthiefs comments, you're also betting on the 'mercy' that a criminal who has just committed a capital is going to give you. You are a witness that can put him in prison and dead men/women tell no tales.

That's what the OP was referring to, not what the part that I quoted was referring to:

You should ALWAYS assume that anytime someone comes at you with a gun, knife, ball bat, golf club, katana, or any other weapon, that he means to do you serious or fatal bodily injury. NEVER assume that a bad guy will not hurt you as long as you comply. That is an invitation to certain death.

dksuddeth is making a very broad statement regarding what should "always" be done "anytime" someone threatens you with "any . . . weapon", and says that if you do not this is "an invitation to certain death".

That is complete nonsense. Threatening someone with a weapon does not lead to "certain death".

Exactly my point. Making such broad absolute statements renders the point meaningless.

No, I'm not betting on anything. I'm disputing that the threat of violence using a weapon leads to certain death.

Yet, not all criminals, not even all those who use weapons, kill their victims. Your hypothetical does not match reality.

For the record, I won't fight back, but I don't advocate that position as best for anybody else.

Gilda

Ok, I now understand what it is you're saying and how I misrepresented my statement. Rephrasing that statement to 'compliance to all demands from someone with a weapon will lead you to complete defenselesness if said criminal intends to harm/kill you. If you let the bad guy tie you up, thinking he won't hurt you, you've now invited certain death, IF the bad guy decides to kill you, because you've complied yourself in to a helpless state.

what i really have to say about this hiredgun said quite eloquently above....

there are no good ideas in such a context.
there should not be such contexts.

and there seems something--o i dont know---horrifying about the idea that the idea is afloat out there because of saturation coverage of isolated instances by television that some guy with a gun and a whole series of inward problems and a plan of killing children is likely enough to turn up in any classroom anywhere that a defense routine of any kind is a topic of discussion in elementary schools--- it's as if tv has generated the impression that there is some screwed up sense in which this is now somehow "normal"---part of a reasonable set of expectations about life in america.


how many school attacks have there been over the past decade or so?
how many schools are there in the united states?
how many students were affected by such attacks?
how many students have there been through all the schools in the united states over the past decade?


this texas idea seems hysterical to me, on the order of those creepy "duck and cover" films that circulated during the cold war. the message in those was: hi kids, do you know that your whole life is contingent and that you could be blasted to atoms at any moment? well you could. so you'd better be constantly "prepared" (afraid), ready to dive beneath a closet door in order to ride out the thermonuclear holocaust. o and have a nice day.

i really dont see much of a difference.
and i didn't respond to the poll.

Once you add in all the qualifiers, it becomes easy to see how there is no "certain death" involved here.

Therein lies the dilemma. Are you more likely to be harmed through compliance or through resistance? Resistance creates the possibility of provoking violence from the bad guy than otherwise would not have occurred, or may result in a higher degree of violence than otherwise might have occurred, or it might deter the worse aspects of it. Compliance might make things easier for a criminal intent to do harm, or it might satisfy the criminal with other intent such that no violence is necessary.

I don't think there's any one answer that is going to be best for everyone in every situation. I've chosen escape if possible, and if not, compliance and pacifism as a way to exert some control should such a situation ever happen to me again. It's what I think is best for me as a person, given my physical limitations in a confrontation, particularly with an armed person. Fighting back isn't going to do the guy much, if any harm, but it'll sure give him incentive to hurt me more, and I'd prefer to avoid that.

Gilda

Maybe we should just allow any student that wants to bring a gun for self-protection be allowed to do so. You outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have them... ;)

It is a tough choice. But after watching the movie Battle Royale, I think the same thing would happen 99% of the time. You shoot one kid or one teacher right away and there is no way any kid will be brave enough to charge the gunman (I'm assuming that the gunman is at least 15 feet away from anybody, and there are walls behind him so he won't be blindsided). And I would figure most of the school shooters want to take out specific people and will shoot anybody else that gets in the way (and don't care if they are killed in the process).

The limiting factor of an all out charge would be the number of bullets the clip can carry. But it could get really messy, really quick. I would think a better option would be as soon as a SWAT team is on the scene, they will go in and take the gunman out. Take him by surprise and it should be over rather quickly.

What would happen in a situation like what happened in Russia a few years ago when several gunmen with bombs took over a school? A classroom of students charging one person isn't going to do much. Then again, in the Amish school, he might have been surprised and not expecting to shoot right away, and might have been able to be stopped by a group of kids.

Back when I was still in high school I always used to joke that everyone should have a heavy metal object near their desk that they could throw if a gunman entered the room.

But all in all i doubt it's a good idea. Maybe on an individual basis if the parent wants to, but training school kids in violence won't end violence...

Anyways, the kind of training that would really help defend against gunman isn't really feasible for school (mostly psychologically).

Or there could be a deterrent effect. If arming kids & teachers or training classes to defend themselves, I think an attacker would think twice or pick a different target.